Anatomy of a Film along with an Obituary to a Critic of its Critics

Anyone who is familiar with War Crime Trial knows that media plays an important role in molding international opinion. In a large way ICT functioning has been found to be influenced by global opinions. From this perspective, it is significant that Al Jazeera made a 3 minute film on Gulam Azam. Golam Azam the former chief of the Islamist party Jamaat –e-Islami is now on trial in Bangladesh with charges of crimes against humanity. He is accused of collaborating with the Pakistani army, and ordering the killing of millions during the country’s 1971 war of independence.

What did the film try to convey? Let us not get into any preset opinion; rather I will place the sequences in order so that one may form an independent opinion:

1.  On commentary we hear the charges against Gulam Azam.
2. The commentator introduced Gulam Azam as a person who once led Jamat-e-Islami and now “he can’t walk, he can’t really see nor can he really hear. Yet he has 10 armed police officers watching him at all times. 
3.  The son of Gulam Azam denies any involvement of his father with war crimes and claims that his father had logic for supporting Pakistan.
4. News clippings showing Gulam Azam’s call to support Pakistani Army –while on commentary jamat-e-Islami is termed as a “small” party during 1971.
5. After Independence,  Jamat-e-Islami was banned and then found to become the 3^rd largest party in 8 years.
6. Interview of the defence lawyer claiming that all the 8 who were indicted by ICT were leading “political leaders” of opposition.
7. Commentary on a UN working group claiming that the arrest of these men were “arbitrary and in breach of international law”.
8. Interview of Minister of law (without context) leading to a statement demanding that the tribunal was not international but a domestic one so the detention was not illegal.
9. Commentary informs that the present government’s election manifesto had the agenda of holding trial of the war crime offenders. And the government is determined to fulfill its pledge.
10.  With Gulam Azam’s picture the commentator informs that, if found guilty he will face death penalty.
11. “Whatever the decision this court comes to, It will have dramatic consequences. It may bring justice to many but at the price of throwing Bangladesh into further political instability”- concludes the reporter.

Now let us discuss! I for one end up concluding that the film gives an edge to the 89-year old former leader of Jamat-e-Islami (the 3^rd largest political party of Bangladesh) who is presently “detained” (that’s what the commentary informs us no matter what the Minister claimed)- a man who is now so feeble that he can’t walk, talk or see. The defence lawyers make us believe that Gulam Azam, along with 7 other top opposition political leaders, is arrested by the government to undermine opposition (nothing to do with justice). For the Western ear (not for the Middle East viewers who are habituated with Shariah law-based practice of beheading) the commentator leaves the message that this man is facing death sentence in a tribunal which is formed as a part of the government’s commitment to punish the alleged war criminals! The conclusion tells us that Bangladesh government (although in the election it had received more than two-third majority) does not know what’s best for the country. Justice is not the key concern- the reporter educates; the key concern is to prevent political instability (well it keeps us guessing when will someone from the international community gets this message across to Bangladesh).

This is what anyone who does not even know Bangladesh and its history will probably make out of the film. Well someone who knows Bangladesh wrote so on a daily. This brings us to another critic. Let’s call him the “critic of the critic”. What he does in criticizing the Bangladeshi critic of the film is extraordinary:

1. He regrets that media is trying to be a friend of the government – as otherwise there will be negative implications. This is why the piece was written (the film and its content has got nothing to do with it). Now how good do you know Bangladesh? Probably you have not ever read a single line before on the country. Learn from the expert who dwells in this third world autocracy- that what he tells us! 
2. He finds that the film was not biased – it had the victim’s perspective and he makes us believe that it is obvious around the world to hold such a perspective for the sake of neutral. Now that’s some logic! 
3.   After writing the 3,771 words long post on his blog- he realizes that his own bias can become obvious. So he explains, “Why spend so much time on this, you may be asking. This is because it is important to stop the harmful and dangerous misrepresentation of journalism and journalists which is playing into the hands of those who want the ICT to be spoken about using a one dimensional script”. So he was on a benevolent mission towards Bangladesh (after all someone has to tie the bell)!

So you can very well see- what Bangladesh is facing in its pursuit to bring those who had been accused of committing crimes against humanity during 1971? It’s not just being attacked by international media (such as this Al Jazeera film) for conducting the trial (which pushes old feeble politicians at the risk of being sentenced to death!!) but also being criticized by international media’s self-claimed monitor for criticizing such negative media campaign (as it makes us the harmful and dangerous misrepresentation of journalism and journalists)!!! Where do we get these critics? Beats me!! But let me share a hunch – war crimes are highly political and it draws global attention- may be too many “journalists” with too much idle time in hand are aware of this!